There was a CNN blog post about Chip Saltzman and the Paul Shanklin parody song, 'Barack the Magic Negro'. For some reason this is now an issue when the song came out nearly two years ago. It came from an LA Times column which was questioning whether Barack Obama was 'black enough'. The song is sung by Shanklin, as Al Sharpton, and it is taking the angle of Sharpton claiming that Obama isn't 'black enough'. If we get off the PC train, and take all of these things into account, the song is pretty funny. Here is the contents of my CNN comment which will very likely not be posted there:
"The Democrats need to come off their high horse and realized that the Democrat party is the party with racism issues. The Republican Party was founded as an abolition party. The Republican Party had the the first delegate cast a ballot for a black man, Frederick Douglass. The Republican party got civil rights passed, since a majority of Dems voted against civil rights. The Dems are the party with a sitting Senator who is a former member (not likely reformed) of the KKK.
Conservatives believe all men (and women) are created equal and it is our actions that separate us. Liberals want to force equality on everyone.
The song "Barack the Magic Negro" was taken from an LA Times column and is clearly satirical. The libs need to come off of their high horse and get over themselves. It was not a diss aimed at Obama anyway, it was a diss aimed at the irreverent Al Sharpton and the other 'race hustlers'.
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs. "
Booker T. Washington"
29 December 2008
24 December 2008
Merry Christmas! 2008
Ok, so I just realized that the tree is not lighted in this picture so there's that. But another bit of info is that the tree in the picture (at the tree farm) is not the same one that we brought home. We have gone for three years to the same tree farm to get our Christmas tree. This year, we found our tree took some pictures and cut it down. We put the tag on it and the guys take it to where you pay, they shake it out, bag it up and you grab it and pay by the height. Sounds simple right? That's what I thought so we went into their Christmas Cottage and looked at their merchandise. There was lots of cool stuff, but what I really liked were these boxes that have gold, frankenscence and myrrh. Really nice. Anyway, some time later we go to get our tree, but it's not there. There was a tree with a ticket that was almost the same as ours, I don't remember the exact numbers but it might have ended in 378 and ours was 387. At any rate, if someone had a moment of dyslexia, they might have paid for, and taken, the tree that we took our picture in front of. I was pretty upset and frustrated and frankly ready to go home, but I knew we didn't have another day where we'd be able to go. I work most weekends and with Carmen working days and me working evenings, it was really the last day to reasonably get a tree. So we trudged back out, searched for another tree, cut it down, and followed it the whole way this year.
As a note to Linda, there are tree stands which will adjust your tree for you. You lock the tree into one part which sits in the base. The base has a certain amount of swivel to it so that you can adjust as necessary. It's the best $30 investment on Christmas supplies that we've made.
12 December 2008
Three Woes for Babylon, by Andy Confer
Andy’s book, Three Woes for Babylon: Revelation the Same, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, is excellent for anyone new to the book of Revelation, as well as those who’ve read many commentaries on Revelation. While delving into the hidden points that can be difficult to understand, (or even notice) buried in the scriptures, Andy never forgets what is truly important about Revelation or any other book of the Bible. What is the core of Revelation? What did John attempt to communicate to those who were to receive this wonderful revelation of encouragement? What did God want to communicate to every disciple from the late first century, to today, until the Day of the Return of our Lord? So many books on Revelation will break down the scriptures in an impractical or inaccurate fashion. Andy’s exegesis gives the reader insight without confusion. He does not; “Miss the forest for the trees”. The trees are lovely, and we should examine them, but not at the expense of admiring the beautiful forest that is Revelation.
If you have never studied Revelation, you will get a great deal out of this book as Andy explains some of the finer mysteries of John’s Apocalypse. If you’ve read many commentaries on Revelation, you will almost certainly discover something you’ve never read or noticed before. Not only does Andy look at the symbolic and historical aspects of this great work, he makes the scriptures relevant to the reader. Whether you are a layman or a scholar, there is something new for you to discover. This book also addresses some of the alternative viewpoints on Revelation, and makes an excellent case as to why the ‘Mainstream’ theories on Revelation are inaccurate, or just plain false. Andy speaks to a number of the false doctrines that Denominational ‘Christianity’ has inaccurately derived from passages in Revelation, as well as scriptures which are inappropriately fused with other scriptures in the Bible. Andy does not mince words, and writes with a conviction that has been forged over decades of dedicated service to the Lord.
After spending many years working on this book, Andy has compiled a commentary which not only addresses the details of Revelation, but also seriously and clearly discusses what is truly important about this beautiful work of God. After you finish reading, you will understand what God really meant for you to understand, and you will discover many wonderful and fascinating details along the way.
If you have never studied Revelation, you will get a great deal out of this book as Andy explains some of the finer mysteries of John’s Apocalypse. If you’ve read many commentaries on Revelation, you will almost certainly discover something you’ve never read or noticed before. Not only does Andy look at the symbolic and historical aspects of this great work, he makes the scriptures relevant to the reader. Whether you are a layman or a scholar, there is something new for you to discover. This book also addresses some of the alternative viewpoints on Revelation, and makes an excellent case as to why the ‘Mainstream’ theories on Revelation are inaccurate, or just plain false. Andy speaks to a number of the false doctrines that Denominational ‘Christianity’ has inaccurately derived from passages in Revelation, as well as scriptures which are inappropriately fused with other scriptures in the Bible. Andy does not mince words, and writes with a conviction that has been forged over decades of dedicated service to the Lord.
After spending many years working on this book, Andy has compiled a commentary which not only addresses the details of Revelation, but also seriously and clearly discusses what is truly important about this beautiful work of God. After you finish reading, you will understand what God really meant for you to understand, and you will discover many wonderful and fascinating details along the way.
04 December 2008
Happy Holidays!
I saw this video on CNN and I challenge ReckNHavic to come up with a better Christmas light display.
I know Reck goes to great lengths to make his Christmas display 'complete', but I don't know if I've seen a better one than this. It seems even better that the one that one of the beer companies used in a commercial.
hattip to CNN's iReport.
I know Reck goes to great lengths to make his Christmas display 'complete', but I don't know if I've seen a better one than this. It seems even better that the one that one of the beer companies used in a commercial.
hattip to CNN's iReport.
18 November 2008
Non-Violent Protest???
William Ayers was recently on "Good Morning America" and was interviewed and questioned about his relationship with President-Elect Barack Obama, and about his involvement with the terrorist organization, The Weather Underground. In the interview, Ayers does not deny his involvement, continues to say that the group did not do enough and has the audacity to say that the bombings of the US Capitol, Pentagon, NYPD Headquarters and other bombings (some of which targeted individual citizens) were non-violent. I don't know what kind of parallel universe this guy lives in, but blowing up buildings, killing and injuring innocent Americans is violent. He was 'angry' about the Vietnam War. Unfortunately nations take up arms against other nations. It is unfortunate that wars happen, but at times they are necessary and wars have existed since before recorded History. However, saying that bombing a building such as the NY Police Headquarters is non-violent and saying that soldiers in combat fighting to stop tyranny IS violent is ridiculous. How this man is allowed to be a college professor is beyond me. I can understand his disagreement with the Vietnam War, though I think the Vietnam War was a just war that was fought bravely and honorably by America's finest and poorly by bureaucrats in Washington. However his claims that the Weather Underground's actions were more noble than the men and women of the United States Armed Forces defending the freedom of South Vietnam are deplorable.
16 November 2008
The Race
I'm reading a book called, Dare to Dream Again, and it is an encouraging book for anyone, but especially anyone who is down. If you are feeling depressed, attacked, accused, etc., the book is a great one to read. This poem by D.H. Groberg is in the book, and I really like it, and wanted to share it here.
Whenever I start to hang my head in front of failure’s face,
my downward fall is broken by the memory of a race.
A children’s race, young boys, young men; how I remember well,
excitement sure, but also fear, it wasn’t hard to tell.
They all lined up so full of hope, each thought to win that race
or tie for first, or if not that, at least take second place.
Their parents watched from off the side, each cheering for their son,
and each boy hoped to show his folks that he would be the one.
The whistle blew and off they flew, like chariots of fire,
to win, to be the hero there, was each young boy’s desire.
One boy in particular, whose dad was in the crowd,
was running in the lead and thought “My dad will be so proud.”
But as he speeded down the field and crossed a shallow dip,
the little boy who thought he’d win, lost his step and slipped.
Trying hard to catch himself, his arms flew everyplace,
and midst the laughter of the crowd he fell flat on his face.
As he fell, his hope fell too; he couldn’t win it now.
Humiliated, he just wished to disappear somehow.
But as he fell his dad stood up and showed his anxious face,
which to the boy so clearly said, “Get up and win that race!”
He quickly rose, no damage done, behind a bit that’s all,
and ran with all his mind and might to make up for his fall.
So anxious to restore himself, to catch up and to win,
his mind went faster than his legs. He slipped and fell again.
He wished that he had quit before with only one disgrace.
“I’m hopeless as a runner now, I shouldn’t try to race.”
But through the laughing crowd he searched and found his father’s face
with a steady look that said again, “Get up and win that race!”
So he jumped up to try again, ten yards behind the last.
“If I’m to gain those yards,” he thought, “I’ve got to run real fast!”
Exceeding everything he had, he regained eight, then ten...
but trying hard to catch the lead, he slipped and fell again.
Defeat! He lay there silently. A tear dropped from his eye.
“There’s no sense running anymore! Three strikes I’m out! Why try?
I’ve lost, so what’s the use?” he thought. “I’ll live with my disgrace.”
But then he thought about his dad, who soon he’d have to face.
“Get up,” an echo sounded low, “you haven’t lost at all,
for all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall.
Get up!” the echo urged him on, “Get up and take your place!
You were not meant for failure here! Get up and win that race!”
So, up he rose to run once more, refusing to forfeit,
and he resolved that win or lose, at least he wouldn’t quit.
So far behind the others now, the most he’d ever been,
still he gave it all he had and ran like he could win.
Three times he’d fallen stumbling, three times he rose again.
Too far behind to hope to win, he still ran to the end.
They cheered another boy who crossed the line and won first place,
head high and proud and happy -- no falling, no disgrace.
But, when the fallen youngster crossed the line, in last place,
the crowd gave him a greater cheer for finishing the race.
And even though he came in last with head bowed low, unproud,
you would have thought he’d won the race, to listen to the crowd.
And to his dad he sadly said, “I didn’t do so well.”
“To me, you won,” his father said. “You rose each time you fell.”
And now when things seem dark and bleak and difficult to face,
the memory of that little boy helps me in my own race.
For all of life is like that race, with ups and downs and all.
And all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall.
And when depression and despair shout loudly in my face,
another voice within me says, “Get up and win that race!”
D.H. Groberg
Whenever I start to hang my head in front of failure’s face,
my downward fall is broken by the memory of a race.
A children’s race, young boys, young men; how I remember well,
excitement sure, but also fear, it wasn’t hard to tell.
They all lined up so full of hope, each thought to win that race
or tie for first, or if not that, at least take second place.
Their parents watched from off the side, each cheering for their son,
and each boy hoped to show his folks that he would be the one.
The whistle blew and off they flew, like chariots of fire,
to win, to be the hero there, was each young boy’s desire.
One boy in particular, whose dad was in the crowd,
was running in the lead and thought “My dad will be so proud.”
But as he speeded down the field and crossed a shallow dip,
the little boy who thought he’d win, lost his step and slipped.
Trying hard to catch himself, his arms flew everyplace,
and midst the laughter of the crowd he fell flat on his face.
As he fell, his hope fell too; he couldn’t win it now.
Humiliated, he just wished to disappear somehow.
But as he fell his dad stood up and showed his anxious face,
which to the boy so clearly said, “Get up and win that race!”
He quickly rose, no damage done, behind a bit that’s all,
and ran with all his mind and might to make up for his fall.
So anxious to restore himself, to catch up and to win,
his mind went faster than his legs. He slipped and fell again.
He wished that he had quit before with only one disgrace.
“I’m hopeless as a runner now, I shouldn’t try to race.”
But through the laughing crowd he searched and found his father’s face
with a steady look that said again, “Get up and win that race!”
So he jumped up to try again, ten yards behind the last.
“If I’m to gain those yards,” he thought, “I’ve got to run real fast!”
Exceeding everything he had, he regained eight, then ten...
but trying hard to catch the lead, he slipped and fell again.
Defeat! He lay there silently. A tear dropped from his eye.
“There’s no sense running anymore! Three strikes I’m out! Why try?
I’ve lost, so what’s the use?” he thought. “I’ll live with my disgrace.”
But then he thought about his dad, who soon he’d have to face.
“Get up,” an echo sounded low, “you haven’t lost at all,
for all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall.
Get up!” the echo urged him on, “Get up and take your place!
You were not meant for failure here! Get up and win that race!”
So, up he rose to run once more, refusing to forfeit,
and he resolved that win or lose, at least he wouldn’t quit.
So far behind the others now, the most he’d ever been,
still he gave it all he had and ran like he could win.
Three times he’d fallen stumbling, three times he rose again.
Too far behind to hope to win, he still ran to the end.
They cheered another boy who crossed the line and won first place,
head high and proud and happy -- no falling, no disgrace.
But, when the fallen youngster crossed the line, in last place,
the crowd gave him a greater cheer for finishing the race.
And even though he came in last with head bowed low, unproud,
you would have thought he’d won the race, to listen to the crowd.
And to his dad he sadly said, “I didn’t do so well.”
“To me, you won,” his father said. “You rose each time you fell.”
And now when things seem dark and bleak and difficult to face,
the memory of that little boy helps me in my own race.
For all of life is like that race, with ups and downs and all.
And all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall.
And when depression and despair shout loudly in my face,
another voice within me says, “Get up and win that race!”
D.H. Groberg
08 November 2008
One More Reason to Homeschool
The election is over. Barack Obama won, and congratulations to him and his supporters. So long as his policies don't conflict with the constitution or my moral compass, I will support him. I will point it out when he is wrong, but he will very soon be MY President, and as such deserves every respect of the office to which he was elected. It is unfortunate that too many people did not give George Bush the same courtesy. I hope that all people on the right will do the same, and support their new president.
With that said, here is a video, which shows how tenure is a bad idea in schools. Spending in schools over the last 40 years has more than doubled, yet the results are the same. In 1970 we were spending an average of $4,060 per student in 2006-2007 dollars. In 2005, we were spending $9,266. (Heritage Foundation) While there have been slight improvements in performance by age 9, by age 13 and 17 those gains in performance drop off to at or below performance levels in 1970. Obviously throwing more money at schools is not working. But tenure and the teachers unions have made it nearly impossible to get rid of teachers that are not performing. Here is a video of a teacher who is an Obama supporter, who needs to be let go from her teaching job. What she does to the little girl who says she supports John McCain is embarrassing, and alone should be cause for administrative discipline at a minimum. But that's not how it usually works in American public schools nowadays. Most kids get stuck in liberalism factories and are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think. I know this is not representative of all teachers, and I know not all schools are bad schools. But there are too many for the next generation to come out better than they were 40-50 years ago.
Hattip for the video to www.Glennbeck.com
With that said, here is a video, which shows how tenure is a bad idea in schools. Spending in schools over the last 40 years has more than doubled, yet the results are the same. In 1970 we were spending an average of $4,060 per student in 2006-2007 dollars. In 2005, we were spending $9,266. (Heritage Foundation) While there have been slight improvements in performance by age 9, by age 13 and 17 those gains in performance drop off to at or below performance levels in 1970. Obviously throwing more money at schools is not working. But tenure and the teachers unions have made it nearly impossible to get rid of teachers that are not performing. Here is a video of a teacher who is an Obama supporter, who needs to be let go from her teaching job. What she does to the little girl who says she supports John McCain is embarrassing, and alone should be cause for administrative discipline at a minimum. But that's not how it usually works in American public schools nowadays. Most kids get stuck in liberalism factories and are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think. I know this is not representative of all teachers, and I know not all schools are bad schools. But there are too many for the next generation to come out better than they were 40-50 years ago.
Hattip for the video to www.Glennbeck.com
30 October 2008
Advertisements
If you are an avid reader of my blog, (all three of you) you might be wondering what happened to my advertising. Well I amassed a grand total of about $6.00 in advertising revenue, and they don't cut you a check unless you get at least $10.00. So the money wasn't really an issue, but even if my blog was bringing in significant revenue, I would have had to stop the ads after the ad that was up today. In the past, there had been ads that I didn't care for, but today, google crossed the line. Now I know that they just pick keywords, but there should be some sort of context assigned. There was an ad for a Pro-Death website, howmuchtime.org. I really don't know how they get a .org web address, but it is what it is. Anyway, here is a copy of my e-mail to the website, which asks how much prison time a woman should get who gets an abortion.
Your question is; "How much time?" I'd say life. Life in prison for the life she chose to destroy. Life in prison for the doctor who actually carried it out. A woman's right to privacy does not trump the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No person's right to privacy trumps the health and welfare of another. Since you decided to advertise on my blog, you will get an earful from me. 45,000,000 murders in the United States alone, all sanctioned by the radical, left-wing agenda, and allowed to go on by the silent masses. I will be silent no longer! Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or this nation will be torn apart, either from within or by our enemies. Abortion has no place in a moral, civilized society, and every nation that permits it will eventually be torn apart. The question should be; "How much time before God passes His judgment on this nation?"
So maybe you can tell I was a little ticked off. But I feel that unless we overturn abortion, which has taken more lives than Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung combined, just in America, this nation will be torn apart. Now as the election approaches, there is a choice for those who are Pro-Life. While this issue is not the only reason for my McCain vote, it is one reason. Obama's record on abortion is monstrous. But I think it goes to a bigger issue of character. Obama seems to do whatever he wants to gain power. He said he would take public financing, and then he reneged. This may seem like a small thing, but it is just one more little bit of proof that his word means nothing. If his word means nothing, how can we believe him when he says he cares about the middle class. And if he is willing to let a child suffocate or starve to death, who's next? The elderly? The handicapped? If he won't stand up for the innocent, who will he stand up for? When analyzing his past, I foresee an Obama Presidency (I think McCain still has a shot, and stands a good chance of pulling this election out BTW) as leading us down the path to a socialist or fascist state.
I know the useful idiots on the left don't believe this, but Mussolini was a Communist. He used fascism as a means to gain and hold power, and the roots of fascism, in Italy at least, were a leftist brand of fascism. I previously thought that Obama reminded me more of Jimmy Carter and even entered this as my answer to the poll question I had up last week. But I'm starting to think that he is more like Mussolini, and will be the last nail in America's coffin if we don't wake up. The brand of liberalism Obama prescribes to is the type that nearly destroyed Europe. An Obama Government is not likely to be any different, unless he is stopped. Nevertheless, he could be the result of our nation's indifference to abortion. I hope this is not the case, and we wake up soon. It's not too late to end Obama's run. Vote McCain now! McCain is not perfect, or even a real conservative, but Obama is the most radical Presidential candidate in the history of the United States. He needs to be stopped, and so does abortion. Call or e-mail your congressman and tell them to put forward legislation to make abortion illegal. Even if it doesn't get out of committee, it needs to be put forward, before it's too late.
Your question is; "How much time?" I'd say life. Life in prison for the life she chose to destroy. Life in prison for the doctor who actually carried it out. A woman's right to privacy does not trump the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No person's right to privacy trumps the health and welfare of another. Since you decided to advertise on my blog, you will get an earful from me. 45,000,000 murders in the United States alone, all sanctioned by the radical, left-wing agenda, and allowed to go on by the silent masses. I will be silent no longer! Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or this nation will be torn apart, either from within or by our enemies. Abortion has no place in a moral, civilized society, and every nation that permits it will eventually be torn apart. The question should be; "How much time before God passes His judgment on this nation?"
So maybe you can tell I was a little ticked off. But I feel that unless we overturn abortion, which has taken more lives than Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung combined, just in America, this nation will be torn apart. Now as the election approaches, there is a choice for those who are Pro-Life. While this issue is not the only reason for my McCain vote, it is one reason. Obama's record on abortion is monstrous. But I think it goes to a bigger issue of character. Obama seems to do whatever he wants to gain power. He said he would take public financing, and then he reneged. This may seem like a small thing, but it is just one more little bit of proof that his word means nothing. If his word means nothing, how can we believe him when he says he cares about the middle class. And if he is willing to let a child suffocate or starve to death, who's next? The elderly? The handicapped? If he won't stand up for the innocent, who will he stand up for? When analyzing his past, I foresee an Obama Presidency (I think McCain still has a shot, and stands a good chance of pulling this election out BTW) as leading us down the path to a socialist or fascist state.
I know the useful idiots on the left don't believe this, but Mussolini was a Communist. He used fascism as a means to gain and hold power, and the roots of fascism, in Italy at least, were a leftist brand of fascism. I previously thought that Obama reminded me more of Jimmy Carter and even entered this as my answer to the poll question I had up last week. But I'm starting to think that he is more like Mussolini, and will be the last nail in America's coffin if we don't wake up. The brand of liberalism Obama prescribes to is the type that nearly destroyed Europe. An Obama Government is not likely to be any different, unless he is stopped. Nevertheless, he could be the result of our nation's indifference to abortion. I hope this is not the case, and we wake up soon. It's not too late to end Obama's run. Vote McCain now! McCain is not perfect, or even a real conservative, but Obama is the most radical Presidential candidate in the history of the United States. He needs to be stopped, and so does abortion. Call or e-mail your congressman and tell them to put forward legislation to make abortion illegal. Even if it doesn't get out of committee, it needs to be put forward, before it's too late.
28 October 2008
Redistribution of Wealth
This is from an interview with a Chicago radio station in 2001. If you listen carefully (well maybe you won't have to be so careful) you'll notice that Obama thinks that the constitution is flawed. He says that the constitution says what the government and states can't do, but doesn't say what they have to do for the people.
"Ask not what uh, er, you can do for your uh, country. Uh, Ask what does my uh, government, owe ME?"
"Ask not what uh, er, you can do for your uh, country. Uh, Ask what does my uh, government, owe ME?"
Joe Biden puts his foot in his mouth...again.
I've heard this story from so many places I don't really know who to give credit to. Beck, Limbaugh, Boortz, Levin. I don't know, you pick.
Senator Obama, speaking to Joe (the plumber) Wurzelbacher:
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Senator Biden, speaking to Barbara West at WFTV News:
WEST: You may recognize this famous quote: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?
Senator Obama, speaking to Joe (the plumber) Wurzelbacher:
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Senator Biden, speaking to Barbara West at WFTV News:
WEST: You may recognize this famous quote: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?
BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?
WEST: No.
BIDEN: Or is that a real question?
WEST: That's a question.
BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have.
Eh? Senator Biden, anyone in the nation who is paying attention to this election heard Obama tell Joe the plumber that an Obama Administration would 'spread the wealth around'. Where have you been? I know your foot is almost permanently placed in your mouth, but, MY GOODNESS! You are either a liar, an idiot or ignorant. In the position you are running for, I don't know which is worse, but none of the above would be good for America.
Just a fact check for Joe Biden. The Bush Administration gave EVERY American a tax break. Senator Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which will be a tax increase for every American family making over $25,000. But Obama's not going to raise taxes....riiiiggghtttt.
27 October 2008
Jindal '12
Why John McCain did not pick Bobby Jindal for his running mate is anyone's guess. Though many conservatives have fallen in love (figuratively and in some cases literally) with Sarah Palin, let's look at Bobby Jindal's credentials: (from US News & World Report.com )
1. The son of immigrants from India's Punjab state, Jindal made history when he became the first U.S. governor with roots in India.
2. Born Piyush Jindal in Baton Rouge in 1971, he gave himself the nickname Bobby—after the youngest son on The Brady Bunch—when he was 4.
3. Raised a Hindu, Jindal converted to Catholicism as a teenager. As a young convert, he wrote of the emotional and intellectual struggles of his spiritual journey in several articles that were published in the New Oxford Review, a Catholic magazine.
4. Jindal graduated from Baton Rouge High School in 1987. He attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy. He turned down admissions to medical and law schools at Harvard and Yale to attend Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar.
5. While attending Oxford, Jindal contemplated joining the priesthood. He ultimately decided that it was not for him.
6. In 2006, Jindal and his wife, Supriya, delivered their third child at home. Barely able to call 911 before the delivery, Jindal received a nurse's coaching by phone. Just as he was completing the umbilical cord procedure with a shoestring, paramedics arrived. The Jindals have a daughter and two sons.
7. Before he turned 30, Jindal headed Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals and became president of the University of Louisiana System. He served in the Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush and was executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in the late '90s. Prior to public service, Jindal worked for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
8. In 2003, Gov. Mike Foster, who was finishing his second consecutive term and therefore could not run again, encouraged Jindal to run for governor. Defeated by Democrat Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Jindal's first bid for governor was unsuccessful.
9. In 2004, he sought the congressional seat from Louisiana's First District. He won with a whopping 78 percent of the vote and was re-elected in 2006 with almost 90 percent.
10. In 2007, Jindal ran for governor again and won. The victory was largely attributed to old-fashioned politicking, which included Jindal "giving testimony" in Pentecostal and Baptist churches in rural and remote sections of Louisiana.
While Sarah Palin DOES have more executive experience than Obama, McCain and Biden combined, so does Bobby Jindal. He has legislative experience and a little executive experience. But he has such a broad scope of experience that it would be hard for him to be attacked by the likes of the liberals who are attacking Sarah Palin currently. But perhaps it is destined to be. Some have said that we needed Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan. Maybe we need Barack Hussein Obama to get the next great conservative, Bobby Jindal.
1. The son of immigrants from India's Punjab state, Jindal made history when he became the first U.S. governor with roots in India.
2. Born Piyush Jindal in Baton Rouge in 1971, he gave himself the nickname Bobby—after the youngest son on The Brady Bunch—when he was 4.
3. Raised a Hindu, Jindal converted to Catholicism as a teenager. As a young convert, he wrote of the emotional and intellectual struggles of his spiritual journey in several articles that were published in the New Oxford Review, a Catholic magazine.
4. Jindal graduated from Baton Rouge High School in 1987. He attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy. He turned down admissions to medical and law schools at Harvard and Yale to attend Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar.
5. While attending Oxford, Jindal contemplated joining the priesthood. He ultimately decided that it was not for him.
6. In 2006, Jindal and his wife, Supriya, delivered their third child at home. Barely able to call 911 before the delivery, Jindal received a nurse's coaching by phone. Just as he was completing the umbilical cord procedure with a shoestring, paramedics arrived. The Jindals have a daughter and two sons.
7. Before he turned 30, Jindal headed Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals and became president of the University of Louisiana System. He served in the Department of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush and was executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare in the late '90s. Prior to public service, Jindal worked for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co.
8. In 2003, Gov. Mike Foster, who was finishing his second consecutive term and therefore could not run again, encouraged Jindal to run for governor. Defeated by Democrat Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Jindal's first bid for governor was unsuccessful.
9. In 2004, he sought the congressional seat from Louisiana's First District. He won with a whopping 78 percent of the vote and was re-elected in 2006 with almost 90 percent.
10. In 2007, Jindal ran for governor again and won. The victory was largely attributed to old-fashioned politicking, which included Jindal "giving testimony" in Pentecostal and Baptist churches in rural and remote sections of Louisiana.
While Sarah Palin DOES have more executive experience than Obama, McCain and Biden combined, so does Bobby Jindal. He has legislative experience and a little executive experience. But he has such a broad scope of experience that it would be hard for him to be attacked by the likes of the liberals who are attacking Sarah Palin currently. But perhaps it is destined to be. Some have said that we needed Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan. Maybe we need Barack Hussein Obama to get the next great conservative, Bobby Jindal.
16 October 2008
Congratulations 'My Friend'
To Senator McCain:
Congratulations my friend. You did well in the debate, last night. I think you finally won outright. I think, substance wise you have been winning, but you have come across as robotic, cantankerous, and choppy and have said, 'my friends' far too often. Last night, you articulated your points better, taking Senator Obama to task on many occasions. Probably not enough for my liking, but probably as much as the debate format would allow. There are still people out there who do not yet understand that Senator Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, or even worse, Benito Mussolini. His desire to socialize everything is plain wrong and un-American.
Senator McCain, you said last night that you are a Federalist. This was a profound statement. Stating the differences between Federalism and Socialism could win you the election. The federal government has grown too big for its britches, (much like many of the American People) and has exceeded its constitutional mandate. We need to get it in check. Please go back in the direction of true constitutional government, and draw the line between yourself and Senator Obama on these issues. As much as the American people should be shocked and appalled by Obama's connections with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Raila Odinga, they, for some reason do not care. But I believe that Americans do believe in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, they just don't know what the documents say. These two documents along with the Magna Carta are probably the greatest documents in the history of the world with the only exception being the Holy Bible. People respect these documents, tell them what was written 225 years ago, how you will uphold these documents, and how Senator Obama will not.
Congratulations my friend. You did well in the debate, last night. I think you finally won outright. I think, substance wise you have been winning, but you have come across as robotic, cantankerous, and choppy and have said, 'my friends' far too often. Last night, you articulated your points better, taking Senator Obama to task on many occasions. Probably not enough for my liking, but probably as much as the debate format would allow. There are still people out there who do not yet understand that Senator Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, or even worse, Benito Mussolini. His desire to socialize everything is plain wrong and un-American.
Senator McCain, you said last night that you are a Federalist. This was a profound statement. Stating the differences between Federalism and Socialism could win you the election. The federal government has grown too big for its britches, (much like many of the American People) and has exceeded its constitutional mandate. We need to get it in check. Please go back in the direction of true constitutional government, and draw the line between yourself and Senator Obama on these issues. As much as the American people should be shocked and appalled by Obama's connections with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Raila Odinga, they, for some reason do not care. But I believe that Americans do believe in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, they just don't know what the documents say. These two documents along with the Magna Carta are probably the greatest documents in the history of the world with the only exception being the Holy Bible. People respect these documents, tell them what was written 225 years ago, how you will uphold these documents, and how Senator Obama will not.
19 September 2008
The Other "Fairness Doctrine"
Glenn Beck, in an interview with David Freddoso, author of "The Case Against Barack Obama" asked Freddosso about Obama's tax plans, which are constantly changing by the way. Here is a copy of the transcript of the interview.
GLENN: David, can we start with the economy with Barack Obama and the difference of what Barack Obama sees in the economy. How is he different than the politics of old as he calls them, the politics of failed policy?
FREDDOSO: Well, I would say and thanks for having me again, Glenn.
GLENN: Sure.
FREDDOSO: I would say that he, on economics he has rose from a typical populist anti free trade sort of position in a higher tax position that pretty much ignores the incentives involved in government tax policy. As you know, when you raise marginal tax rates, you are basically making it more difficult for small businesses. You are creating extra expenses for them and that means that wages tend to go up more slowly and perhaps even people get laid off if you have a major shift upward in the upper marginal rates. Because the people who hire other people are the ones making the large income. That is part of Obama's tax policy is to raise the top marginal rates.
GLENN: Okay, now wait a minute. Hang on just a second.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: A lot of people don't understand, and I know you just explained. A lot of people don't understand that this is bad. Have you and I know this is past when your book came out but can you document here at all on how Barack Obama has changed his position?
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: on that top marginal rate.
FREDDOSO: Well, you know, he even he went on Stephanopoulos just a couple of weekends ago and when asked about if we go into a recession, would you raise taxes and his answer was, well, maybe not if we go into a recession. So he's already implying here that he understands raising taxes hurts people but he is willing to do it anyway as long as we're not in a recession already.
GLENN: And he's doing it for a reason of what he calls basic fairness.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: Do you remember when he was go ahead.
FREDDOSO: Of course, you are referring to when he was asked by Charlie Gibson, I believe, about the capital gains tax, and he wants to raise the capital gains tax. He said he wants it to go up to maybe 28%. Right now it's 15%. When you raise the capital gains tax, historically revenues go down because people engage in fewer transactions when the marginal when the capital gains rate is high. So in fact, every time that rate has been cut, the government revenues have increased and so Charlie Gibson asked him, well, if raising this tax doesn't actually raise more money for the government, why are you going to do it. And Obama's answer was fairness. So now we have a government I mean, and this is you could say this is a great indicator of socialism. You have the government trying to make the economy more fair by hurting some people and not helping the others. It's a kind of laughable situation you could say.
END TRANSCRIPT
So essentially, Obama knows that raising taxes is bad for the economy. It doesn't bring more revenues, it doesn't create jobs. Raising taxes lowers revenues if anything. It also is a surefire way to lose jobs. If you raise taxes on small business, small business owners will lay people off, making more people dependent on the government, yet the government will have less money to take care of the additional people who need government assistance. So Obama wants to hurt the rich, (of which he is a member) without helping the poor all in the name of 'fairness'. I suppose it's fair if he screws everybody. (except the Marxists, I'm sure his plans include tax breaks for the Marxists) I thought Obama's supporters were the 'educated' class in America. I'm not sure what kind of education his supporters have, but it must not have included research.
GLENN: David, can we start with the economy with Barack Obama and the difference of what Barack Obama sees in the economy. How is he different than the politics of old as he calls them, the politics of failed policy?
FREDDOSO: Well, I would say and thanks for having me again, Glenn.
GLENN: Sure.
FREDDOSO: I would say that he, on economics he has rose from a typical populist anti free trade sort of position in a higher tax position that pretty much ignores the incentives involved in government tax policy. As you know, when you raise marginal tax rates, you are basically making it more difficult for small businesses. You are creating extra expenses for them and that means that wages tend to go up more slowly and perhaps even people get laid off if you have a major shift upward in the upper marginal rates. Because the people who hire other people are the ones making the large income. That is part of Obama's tax policy is to raise the top marginal rates.
GLENN: Okay, now wait a minute. Hang on just a second.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: A lot of people don't understand, and I know you just explained. A lot of people don't understand that this is bad. Have you and I know this is past when your book came out but can you document here at all on how Barack Obama has changed his position?
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: on that top marginal rate.
FREDDOSO: Well, you know, he even he went on Stephanopoulos just a couple of weekends ago and when asked about if we go into a recession, would you raise taxes and his answer was, well, maybe not if we go into a recession. So he's already implying here that he understands raising taxes hurts people but he is willing to do it anyway as long as we're not in a recession already.
GLENN: And he's doing it for a reason of what he calls basic fairness.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: Do you remember when he was go ahead.
FREDDOSO: Of course, you are referring to when he was asked by Charlie Gibson, I believe, about the capital gains tax, and he wants to raise the capital gains tax. He said he wants it to go up to maybe 28%. Right now it's 15%. When you raise the capital gains tax, historically revenues go down because people engage in fewer transactions when the marginal when the capital gains rate is high. So in fact, every time that rate has been cut, the government revenues have increased and so Charlie Gibson asked him, well, if raising this tax doesn't actually raise more money for the government, why are you going to do it. And Obama's answer was fairness. So now we have a government I mean, and this is you could say this is a great indicator of socialism. You have the government trying to make the economy more fair by hurting some people and not helping the others. It's a kind of laughable situation you could say.
END TRANSCRIPT
So essentially, Obama knows that raising taxes is bad for the economy. It doesn't bring more revenues, it doesn't create jobs. Raising taxes lowers revenues if anything. It also is a surefire way to lose jobs. If you raise taxes on small business, small business owners will lay people off, making more people dependent on the government, yet the government will have less money to take care of the additional people who need government assistance. So Obama wants to hurt the rich, (of which he is a member) without helping the poor all in the name of 'fairness'. I suppose it's fair if he screws everybody. (except the Marxists, I'm sure his plans include tax breaks for the Marxists) I thought Obama's supporters were the 'educated' class in America. I'm not sure what kind of education his supporters have, but it must not have included research.
15 September 2008
Born Alive Truth
I've heard about Obama's 'work' in the Illinois legislature where he stopped a bill from coming out of committee that would have ended the disgusting practice of infanticide. I believe all abortions are infanticide, however Obama opposed providing care even to children born ALIVE due to failed abortions. Even the Pro-Abortion group NARAL did not oppose this legislation, either the Illinois bill or the Federal Bill, which were virtually identical.
I've only just today found out about this website http://www.bornalivetruth.org/. There is a video on the website with ads that will be running. I also have posted a video here from the O'Reilly Factor in 2000 with Jill Stanek, who has spearheaded this fight to give rights to those who need it most, to those who can't fight for themselves; victims of failed abortions and subsequent suffocation due to indifference and political posturing from people like Barack Obama.
If you call yourself a Christian and you plan on voting for Obama, think again. He is not a Christian! No Christian could possibly allow children born alive to suffocate for hours until they die! If you vote for Obama, this is the tip of the iceberg. I'll leave his radical socialist and communist policies for other posts. This issue is too important and crucial to just leave alone. People need to know how far he is willing to go to gain, and keep power; even to abandoning infants, leaving the to die like an insect. If this were done to a dog or a cat, it would be a felony, but apparently a human life isn't as valuable to a certain Senator from Illinois.
This video was from before the bill was kept from a vote in Illinois, and before the Federal Law passed. Obama would not allow the Induced Infant Liability Act (the Illinois bill), which would protect children born due to failed abortions, out of his committee. When babies are born alive, (due to these failed late-term abortions) they are left to die. Senator Obama is lying about his record on this, and Christians who are considering voting for him better wake up! Obama does not answer tough questions directly. He stutters and stumbles around, talks for a few minutes and never answers the question. He has no convictions! You may disagree with John McCain. I do on many issues. But McCain knows what he believes, and he has convictions. Obama is not as forthcoming; hiding his motives behind empty rhetoric in his slick speeches and stuttering ramblings during face-to-face interviews. If he is willing to sit idly by and watch an infant die a death of suffocation, left alone like a piece of trash, what makes anyone think he really cares about the middle class and the poor? He doesn't. Here is one of MANY articles which show his disdain for human life, and gives more details of his despicable actions in the Illinois Legislature.
I've only just today found out about this website http://www.bornalivetruth.org/. There is a video on the website with ads that will be running. I also have posted a video here from the O'Reilly Factor in 2000 with Jill Stanek, who has spearheaded this fight to give rights to those who need it most, to those who can't fight for themselves; victims of failed abortions and subsequent suffocation due to indifference and political posturing from people like Barack Obama.
If you call yourself a Christian and you plan on voting for Obama, think again. He is not a Christian! No Christian could possibly allow children born alive to suffocate for hours until they die! If you vote for Obama, this is the tip of the iceberg. I'll leave his radical socialist and communist policies for other posts. This issue is too important and crucial to just leave alone. People need to know how far he is willing to go to gain, and keep power; even to abandoning infants, leaving the to die like an insect. If this were done to a dog or a cat, it would be a felony, but apparently a human life isn't as valuable to a certain Senator from Illinois.
This video was from before the bill was kept from a vote in Illinois, and before the Federal Law passed. Obama would not allow the Induced Infant Liability Act (the Illinois bill), which would protect children born due to failed abortions, out of his committee. When babies are born alive, (due to these failed late-term abortions) they are left to die. Senator Obama is lying about his record on this, and Christians who are considering voting for him better wake up! Obama does not answer tough questions directly. He stutters and stumbles around, talks for a few minutes and never answers the question. He has no convictions! You may disagree with John McCain. I do on many issues. But McCain knows what he believes, and he has convictions. Obama is not as forthcoming; hiding his motives behind empty rhetoric in his slick speeches and stuttering ramblings during face-to-face interviews. If he is willing to sit idly by and watch an infant die a death of suffocation, left alone like a piece of trash, what makes anyone think he really cares about the middle class and the poor? He doesn't. Here is one of MANY articles which show his disdain for human life, and gives more details of his despicable actions in the Illinois Legislature.
11 September 2008
New York: Day Six
You may be thinking; "What happened to Days 3, 4 and 5?" Well be patient grasshopper, they'll be coming soon. But on today, September 11th I felt that I needed to post this. I didn't know if we'd get to go to ground zero, but the night before we left, we had an opportunity to go. We went with with Carmen's sister and her husband. He works for a construction company so he had some cool insight into the crane incidents and he had worked on a few projects near the ground zero. The last time I went to New York, over 7 years ago, the towers were still standing, and I even got a good look at them as my plane flew into JFK from Seattle over Giants Stadium and lower Manhattan. I had no idea that would be the last time I'd see them that close. On that trip 7 years ago, besides my flight, I would only see the towers from the Whitestone Bridge.
The picture to the left is the 'progress that has been made so far. It's pretty pathetic if you ask me. But the politicization of the process of selecting a memorial and a new design for the freedom tower have apparently bogged down construction significantly. Hopefully they will have it finished by the 10th anniversary as Mayor Bloomberg is pushing for. We'll see.
The pictures at the top are on the fire station next to ground zero. It was a pretty impressive memorial and the pictures don't do it justice. As a side note, I think all the firefighters at the station were Irish because they talked like the policeman at the zoo in 'Lady and the Tramp'.
After we left, we went to the South Street Seaport and took some pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge (which didn't come out) and the waterfalls around the city which they have temporarily put up. It was pretty cool. The day was generally a cool day. We pretty much relaxed that day and hung out before we went to Manhattan. I may go into more detail about that later, but I really wanted to get something up today, before I go to work.
06 September 2008
New York: Day Two
Day two started off slower than I'd have liked. We were up a little late, but of course we stayed out late the night before. We finally got going and headed to the subway to take the train to the Museum of Natural History. We got to the museum which I didn't realize had it's own entrance from the subway, gave our donation (which was significantly less than the suggested donation) and began looking around. We saw the Earth science section which unfortunately had its own section designed by an Al Gore acolyte, but had some really cool stuff otherwise. As Carmen and I were talking about it, some people were giving us strange looks. Oh well, liberals.
Next we went to the North American Mammals exhibit which had some impressive displays of caribou, moose, bears, mountain lions and any other wild animal you can think of in North America. The detail was fantastic, and having not been there since I was a kid it was a great experience seeing it again.
We also went to see the sea creatures, African Mammals and Dinosaur exhibits, and they were all done in spectacular fashion. About half-way through our museum tour we went outside to get some lunch and we had more hot dogs, again good, but no crunch and a pretzel and went across the street to the shade of Central Park. From there, and upon going back into the museum I got these pictures.
One of the TR quotes in the entrance hall didn't come out, but I love all of the quotes. I especially like the endings.
I'll write them out here. In speaking of manhood TR said: "Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die, and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life."
In speaking of the State TR said: "If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness."
On Nature he said: "Conservation means development as much as it does protection."
On Youth (the picture didn't come out right) he said: "Character in the long run is the deciding factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike."
After we left the museum we were waiting for Carmen's sister to come pick us up. Carmen hadn't seen her in about 12 years and even though they didn't grow up together, they have a lot in common. We hung out in Central Park until she got there, and we lied in the grass, (which you can't do most places in Texas right now) and watched the kids play.
After her sister picked us up, we made the drive out to Yonkers and hung out at their apartment for the afternoon. Isabella and her cousin Andrew hit it off and we talked to Carmen's sister and her husband for awhile. We took the kids to the playground down the street and hung out for awhile. Eventually we had to leave because they were going to Pennsylvania the next day and we had yet another busy day lined up. I paid excellent attention to the route Sasha (he's Russian) took back to Queens and we talked for awhile while Carmen and the kids watched a movie in the back of their 'fancy van'. The way to get to the part of Queens where Carmen's mom lives is different from
the parts of Queens I used to go to, and we were going to Connecticut the next day. But we finally got back home, went to bed and were getting ready for day three.
Reagan Redivivus???
I don't know, I'm still not sold on Sarah Palin. I think conservatives are treating her almost like liberals are treating Obama. She is not being scrutinized enough. It's not enough to feel good about a candidate, we have to also make sure that what we are being fed by the media is accurate.
There's no question that the left is on a mission to destroy her, but conservatives are on a mission to paint her as Reagan Redivivus. I really don't know about her. She's not terribly experienced. I admit that she has more executive experience, which is what counts at this point, than Obama, McCain and Biden combined. I don't know that that's saying much though.
Now getting to the issue of family. I know that every Republican is staying away from this subject but I can not, because it does give a glimpse into her character, if even a small one. I believe that the most important relationship outside of the relationship with God is with your spouse, and then with your children. I also know that kids will be kids, and kids will be rebellious, but I'm not sure about this situation. In talking about Jamie Lynn Spears, the tool Bill O'Reilly classically said it's the parents fault. (hattip to lafin gas over at TBSN) Now certainly there is a much different dynamic in the Spears family than the Palin's. But shouldn't we even question it? Why is this getting a pass? Imagine if Chelsea Clinton turned up pregnant during Bill Clinton's time in office. There would have been a media firestorm.
I'm not saying that she's necessarily a bad choice, she could turn out to be a great choice. But I'm not sold yet. I don't get how people like James Dobson are not even questioning her on this. Now, because we're talking about a conservative candidate, teenage pregnancy is a 'family' issue. If it was a liberal though, the same people would be questioning the parenting and family values in that home, and say how it's a reflection of society in general. Family values in America have been thrown out the window and have been trampled and stomped on. The Spears' family is probably part of the problem, and certainly a reflection of the problem. But, the overall lack of parenting in America is primarily to blame.
We let daycare, schools and TV raise our kids nowadays. What they see as normal is the rot that comes in through the TV. Even if you raise your kids properly, if they go to school, they are still subjected to that filth by the kids whose parents don't care. The vast majority of schools are not helping. They either are contributing to the problem by not teaching kids critical thinking skills or they are indoctrinating kids into liberalism outright.
Back to Sarah Palin. I believe that she is a mother who truly cares about her kids and wants the best for her kids. But I do wonder if her parental choices would be getting a pass from conservatives if she was a Democrat. Are 'values voters' really convinced that her parenting is what it should be, or has the full-frontal assault by conservative pundits and commentators guilting conservatives into believing that she's the real deal? I don't mean to bash her, but there are serious problems that are visible. Our culture has devolved to the point that you are a hate-monger for asking serious questions. I know that there is no perfect candidate, and in this election cycle there were certainly fewer decent ones than usual, but my question is this: Should we be looking into her personal life for insight into what kind of Vice President she will be? I say yes. Rudy Giuliani's failed marriages have been brought into question and no one complained about that. As have Fred Thompson's and John McCain's. While I don't think her family situation should disqualify her, I think it should be debated. Debate is not bad. Questioning is not bad. It should either refine the candidate and make them better or show them to be unqualified. Either way, it is better for America.
There's no question that the left is on a mission to destroy her, but conservatives are on a mission to paint her as Reagan Redivivus. I really don't know about her. She's not terribly experienced. I admit that she has more executive experience, which is what counts at this point, than Obama, McCain and Biden combined. I don't know that that's saying much though.
Now getting to the issue of family. I know that every Republican is staying away from this subject but I can not, because it does give a glimpse into her character, if even a small one. I believe that the most important relationship outside of the relationship with God is with your spouse, and then with your children. I also know that kids will be kids, and kids will be rebellious, but I'm not sure about this situation. In talking about Jamie Lynn Spears, the tool Bill O'Reilly classically said it's the parents fault. (hattip to lafin gas over at TBSN) Now certainly there is a much different dynamic in the Spears family than the Palin's. But shouldn't we even question it? Why is this getting a pass? Imagine if Chelsea Clinton turned up pregnant during Bill Clinton's time in office. There would have been a media firestorm.
I'm not saying that she's necessarily a bad choice, she could turn out to be a great choice. But I'm not sold yet. I don't get how people like James Dobson are not even questioning her on this. Now, because we're talking about a conservative candidate, teenage pregnancy is a 'family' issue. If it was a liberal though, the same people would be questioning the parenting and family values in that home, and say how it's a reflection of society in general. Family values in America have been thrown out the window and have been trampled and stomped on. The Spears' family is probably part of the problem, and certainly a reflection of the problem. But, the overall lack of parenting in America is primarily to blame.
We let daycare, schools and TV raise our kids nowadays. What they see as normal is the rot that comes in through the TV. Even if you raise your kids properly, if they go to school, they are still subjected to that filth by the kids whose parents don't care. The vast majority of schools are not helping. They either are contributing to the problem by not teaching kids critical thinking skills or they are indoctrinating kids into liberalism outright.
Back to Sarah Palin. I believe that she is a mother who truly cares about her kids and wants the best for her kids. But I do wonder if her parental choices would be getting a pass from conservatives if she was a Democrat. Are 'values voters' really convinced that her parenting is what it should be, or has the full-frontal assault by conservative pundits and commentators guilting conservatives into believing that she's the real deal? I don't mean to bash her, but there are serious problems that are visible. Our culture has devolved to the point that you are a hate-monger for asking serious questions. I know that there is no perfect candidate, and in this election cycle there were certainly fewer decent ones than usual, but my question is this: Should we be looking into her personal life for insight into what kind of Vice President she will be? I say yes. Rudy Giuliani's failed marriages have been brought into question and no one complained about that. As have Fred Thompson's and John McCain's. While I don't think her family situation should disqualify her, I think it should be debated. Debate is not bad. Questioning is not bad. It should either refine the candidate and make them better or show them to be unqualified. Either way, it is better for America.
05 September 2008
New York: Day One
Day one started at midnight. I worked the evening before we left and when I got home, it was time to pack, get about 3 hours sleep and head to the airport. The flight was smooth except the landing was rougher than I'm used to, but all in all, pretty good. We were waiting for awhile after we landed, because my mother in law was at the wrong terminal to pick us up. If anyone has ever been to JFK, you may know that it is a labyrinth and an airport that was designed a long time ago, struggling to make it into the 21st century as the busiest airport in the most important city in the world. Anyway, she finally found us, we went to her place, had lunch, got settled in and I took a nap as Carmen took the kids for a walk around the old neighborhood. Awwww Yeahhhh! Hollis Son! (Insert RunDMC song here)
That night we went on a date to a raw food restaurant. The prices were high, but I attribute that partly to the cost of the ingredients and partly to the fact that the restaurant is in a trendy neighborhood in Manhattan. The food was incredible and quite honestly worth every penny. If you're ever in Manhattan and want to try excellent food, go to Pure Food and Wine. After that, we decided to walk the 25 blocks or so to Times Square. It was a great walk and a nice night. (it was in the 70's :D )
On the way I was thinking that I haven't had a real New York Hot Dog in a long time and there's nothing better to top off a great dinner of raw fruits, vegetables and nuts formed into delectable goodness than a common NY Hot Dog, from your friendly Sabrett street vendors of course. I have to admit though, I was a little disappointed. I remember that the thing I loved about the Hot Dogs from the Sabrett vendors is that they would crunch when you bite into them. I don't know why, and I probably don't want to know why, but there would be a very distinct crunch. The crunch was not there, and after 7 years of waiting I was of course very disappointed.
When we got to Times Square, it was probably about 11 at night, but you couldn't tell. The city there is lit up like it's 4 in the afternoon with massive ads all over the place. One thing that our family is sensitive to is advertisements. We don't have TV so our advertisement load is limited to the Internet (which I don't pay that much attention to advertisements on) and billboards. But New York takes advertising to the next level. In Times Square I suppose I expected it, but what really shocked me on this trip was ads on bridges, in subways and anywhere else that is conceivable (or even inconceivable)
We walked around for a little while and went into the massive Virgin Records store, looked around for awhile and decided to make the trek back to Queens. On the way to the Subway, we saw some impressive art. A guy with a can of spray paint was creating some impressive skylines of NY, complete with WTC 1&2. (More on the WTC later) Then we hit the subway and a bus back to Hollis. Anyway that's Day One.
That night we went on a date to a raw food restaurant. The prices were high, but I attribute that partly to the cost of the ingredients and partly to the fact that the restaurant is in a trendy neighborhood in Manhattan. The food was incredible and quite honestly worth every penny. If you're ever in Manhattan and want to try excellent food, go to Pure Food and Wine. After that, we decided to walk the 25 blocks or so to Times Square. It was a great walk and a nice night. (it was in the 70's :D )
On the way I was thinking that I haven't had a real New York Hot Dog in a long time and there's nothing better to top off a great dinner of raw fruits, vegetables and nuts formed into delectable goodness than a common NY Hot Dog, from your friendly Sabrett street vendors of course. I have to admit though, I was a little disappointed. I remember that the thing I loved about the Hot Dogs from the Sabrett vendors is that they would crunch when you bite into them. I don't know why, and I probably don't want to know why, but there would be a very distinct crunch. The crunch was not there, and after 7 years of waiting I was of course very disappointed.
When we got to Times Square, it was probably about 11 at night, but you couldn't tell. The city there is lit up like it's 4 in the afternoon with massive ads all over the place. One thing that our family is sensitive to is advertisements. We don't have TV so our advertisement load is limited to the Internet (which I don't pay that much attention to advertisements on) and billboards. But New York takes advertising to the next level. In Times Square I suppose I expected it, but what really shocked me on this trip was ads on bridges, in subways and anywhere else that is conceivable (or even inconceivable)
We walked around for a little while and went into the massive Virgin Records store, looked around for awhile and decided to make the trek back to Queens. On the way to the Subway, we saw some impressive art. A guy with a can of spray paint was creating some impressive skylines of NY, complete with WTC 1&2. (More on the WTC later) Then we hit the subway and a bus back to Hollis. Anyway that's Day One.
25 August 2008
Who's Right?
I caught this article on Yahoo!, which talks about the Farmer's Almanac predicting a much colder winter this year which is at odds with what is being said by the global warming Kool-Aid drinkers (The National Weather Service) . Now I'm betting that the Farmer's Almanac is right, because the Kool-Aid drinkers have been wrong for that last 3 hurricane seasons and the Almanac is right about 80-85% of the time.
23 August 2008
Thank You Obama
On Thursday, August 21st Barack Obama gave us this little nugget of wisdom:
"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."
I would like to say thank you to Barack Obama. Thank you for making it clear to us what you really want. You continue hinting at your push for socialism. This is just one more example. So you want the government to control healthcare, you want government control of energy, and you want a communist style government to work on infrastructure? Thank you Barack for not hiding who you really are.
I do have a question for you though Senator. Why does China look like a good option for business? Is it because wages and tax rates are lower? But you want to raise taxes Senator. Do you want to make China look like an even better option for business? Or will you deny that when you become Grand Exalted Premier? You have also said that you think we shouldn't even have elections, this one from a speech in (where else) San Francisco this past week:
“Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so,” he said. “It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, ‘Let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working.’ ”
and “So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, ‘This should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ’em out.’ But American politics aren’t that simple.”
No Senator, American politics aren't that simple. We have these things called elections. In elections, the American people get an opportunity to vote. What's funny is that unlike places you like to look up to, like China and the Soviet Union, there is usually more than one person running in the election. Yes, you do have to go through the primary process, because people have to make sure that whoever they vote for is the best person for the job. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't, and sometimes there isn't a good choice, (like this year) but we always have a say, and an opportunity to vote for who we think is the best. That is unless you become President with a Democrat majority and then you'll just work on getting rid of those pesky elections won't you?
"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."
I would like to say thank you to Barack Obama. Thank you for making it clear to us what you really want. You continue hinting at your push for socialism. This is just one more example. So you want the government to control healthcare, you want government control of energy, and you want a communist style government to work on infrastructure? Thank you Barack for not hiding who you really are.
I do have a question for you though Senator. Why does China look like a good option for business? Is it because wages and tax rates are lower? But you want to raise taxes Senator. Do you want to make China look like an even better option for business? Or will you deny that when you become Grand Exalted Premier? You have also said that you think we shouldn't even have elections, this one from a speech in (where else) San Francisco this past week:
“Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so,” he said. “It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, ‘Let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working.’ ”
and “So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, ‘This should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ’em out.’ But American politics aren’t that simple.”
No Senator, American politics aren't that simple. We have these things called elections. In elections, the American people get an opportunity to vote. What's funny is that unlike places you like to look up to, like China and the Soviet Union, there is usually more than one person running in the election. Yes, you do have to go through the primary process, because people have to make sure that whoever they vote for is the best person for the job. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't, and sometimes there isn't a good choice, (like this year) but we always have a say, and an opportunity to vote for who we think is the best. That is unless you become President with a Democrat majority and then you'll just work on getting rid of those pesky elections won't you?
16 August 2008
Time Magazine's Man of the Year invades Georgia; Yanks watch Atlanta burn...wait.
On December 26th 2007, I put up a post about Vladimir Putin, or as George Bush likes to say, "Pootey Poot". As some of my readers know, Putin was selected as Time's "Man of the Year". So how does our esteemed "Man of the Year" follow up last year's success? He says; "Let's take back Georgia." So Soviet aggression is returning now that America is spread thin.
I didn't know a whole lot about the region so I asked the brother who leads our church for some insight. He lived in Russia, the Ukraine (I think you say "the" Ukraine, kind of like "the" Bronx) and Latvia. Apparently the area of South Ossetia is heavily ethnic Russian. It isn't really surprising though as the Soviets would deport a large portion of the population of the countries they conquered, and import Russians. He (our minister) just returned from a few weeks in Latvia and he said that it is best to speak English first, then speak Russian because even though most Latvians speak Russian, they don't like Russians. I'm sure something similar happened in Georgia, making this "war by proxy" far easier due to the ethnic tension inherent in most former Soviet Republics.
So Putin attacks a region of Georgia, a US ally, that is heavily ethnic Russian. The Kremlin is saying that they were provoked. (Yes Comrade! They shot at us! really? no not really.) I highly doubt that, but if it is true, it is probably only because Russia was putting its troops along the Georgian border. It is a messy situation for the US though, because we don't want to be meddling in a situation that could possibly be perceived similarly to the Kosovo situation in Serbia, but we also don't want to let down our ally, Georgia. I almost wonder if this is payback for the prickly situation that the Russians were put in in Kosovo.
I was in Kosovo immediately after the air war, and the Russians were treated far worse than the Americans. The ethnic Albanians were grateful for the US intervention, and the ethnic Serbs were so irritated at the Russians (who were supposed to be allies of Serbia) that they mostly attacked the Russian peacekeepers instead of messing with the American troops. What America is facing in Georgia is a diplomatic, military and strategic nightmare. We don't really want to provoke Russia as our forces are stretched thin, but neither do we want to abandon our ally, and one of the few capitalist societies remaining on Earth, especially considering its location. Strategically, if Georgia falls, we are losing an allied foothold in the East and a symbol of Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism in the face of 'The Bear'.
Very possibly in response to the Russian action in Georgia, Poland, no doubt remembering its fall at the hands of Hitler's Germany and later at the hands of Stalin's Soviet Union took quick action to allow US defensive missiles into the country. The second Cold War could be brewing, and Poland wants to make sure it is on the right side. But is something even more sinister brewing? Could WW III be on the horizon? Iran, North Korea, and Russia have allied themselves. Are they preparing for war against the West? Is the rest of the world ready? And are we going to send Barack Obama to 'negotiate' with these tyrants. Many conservatives have called Obama "Jimmy Carter II". But I'm even more afraid that he'll be "Neville Chamberlain II".
05 August 2008
The Death Penalty
If I could ever be accused of flip-flopping, it would be on this issue. I have a hard time with this, because I would hope that every person would have the opportunity to be saved, even rapists and murderers. However, when reading about heinous crimes, like this, and this it makes me think that maybe the Death Penalty is a good thing. Right now, I am for the Death Penalty. I believe the government does and should have the right to make the penalty for certain heinous crimes death. The Medellin case is certainly one. I also believe the Cooey case is one. I was not a juror in either, but a jury did hear these cases and appeal after appeal after appeal allowed these executions to go forth. Should they be stopped over a technicality? I don't think so, especially as these technicalities are not of the tampered evidence sort, they are stupid technicalities.
In the case of Cooey, they are saying he is too fat for lethal injection and he might 'suffer' from the effects of the potassium chloride. He might be too fat for the drug that is used to sedate him to work properly. ( BTW, I know an anesthetist who said; "If it doesn't work, I'll just use more.") I'm sure it won't be as bad as the rape and murder of the two young women whose lives he ended. But, if you really want to go down that path, that you're too fat for lethal injection, I have a few alternatives for you; Old Sparky, the Gallows, the Guillotine, a Firing Squad, Concrete Boots, etc. Maybe you should be put on The Rack for a little while before your meeting with the Gallows. Then I think it should all be on Pay Per View, with part of the proceeds going to the victims families, and the rest going to law enforcement and crime prevention. I think if executions were public again, crime would drop significantly.
In the case of Medellin, the (most likely) ACLU lawyers are saying that the Mexican Consulate was never contacted. So they waited 15 years to determine that this illegal immigrant, rapist, murdering scumbag should get a chance to speak to the Mexican consulate? I'm sorry, too late. You should have thought of that 15 years ago. Or 10 years ago. Or 5 years ago. Your time's up pal. As far as listening to international courts, I have this to say; Stay in Europe and call us when you're ready for us to save you again and maybe we'll help you out. Just stay out of American affairs when it comes to the execution of the scum who have voluntarily come here.
I've gotten pretty fired up about this issue because when you see the crimes, any sane person would demand justice. What justice can a state or nation truly give in these types of cases? There is only one justice I can think of here. That is death. If these rapists and murderers repent of their sins and truly come to Jesus, then I say; "Welcome Brother, I'll see you on that Day!" But even if they do TRULY repent, it doesn't change their crimes on Earth, or the consequences that come with their crimes.
One last thing, the arguments against the death penalty are usually that it violates the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, cruel and unusual punishment.
The Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel AND unusual punishments inflicted. (emphasis mine)
I would argue that death for murder is not cruel OR unusual. Most nations throughout history (until recently) have used death as a punishment for certain crimes. I would say death as a punishment is normal. Therefore if a death sentence WAS cruel, (such as being tied to two Hummers going in opposite directions, pulled in half and left for vultures to pick at you) it would still not violate the eighth amendment. It would be cruel, but not unusual. If the penalty for rape was death, it might meet the qualifications of unusual, (though I honestly doubt it) but if it was carried out in a humane manner, ie. lethal injection, it also would not violate the eighth amendment. Just a few things to chew on and start some discussion.
In the case of Cooey, they are saying he is too fat for lethal injection and he might 'suffer' from the effects of the potassium chloride. He might be too fat for the drug that is used to sedate him to work properly. ( BTW, I know an anesthetist who said; "If it doesn't work, I'll just use more.") I'm sure it won't be as bad as the rape and murder of the two young women whose lives he ended. But, if you really want to go down that path, that you're too fat for lethal injection, I have a few alternatives for you; Old Sparky, the Gallows, the Guillotine, a Firing Squad, Concrete Boots, etc. Maybe you should be put on The Rack for a little while before your meeting with the Gallows. Then I think it should all be on Pay Per View, with part of the proceeds going to the victims families, and the rest going to law enforcement and crime prevention. I think if executions were public again, crime would drop significantly.
In the case of Medellin, the (most likely) ACLU lawyers are saying that the Mexican Consulate was never contacted. So they waited 15 years to determine that this illegal immigrant, rapist, murdering scumbag should get a chance to speak to the Mexican consulate? I'm sorry, too late. You should have thought of that 15 years ago. Or 10 years ago. Or 5 years ago. Your time's up pal. As far as listening to international courts, I have this to say; Stay in Europe and call us when you're ready for us to save you again and maybe we'll help you out. Just stay out of American affairs when it comes to the execution of the scum who have voluntarily come here.
I've gotten pretty fired up about this issue because when you see the crimes, any sane person would demand justice. What justice can a state or nation truly give in these types of cases? There is only one justice I can think of here. That is death. If these rapists and murderers repent of their sins and truly come to Jesus, then I say; "Welcome Brother, I'll see you on that Day!" But even if they do TRULY repent, it doesn't change their crimes on Earth, or the consequences that come with their crimes.
One last thing, the arguments against the death penalty are usually that it violates the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, cruel and unusual punishment.
The Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel AND unusual punishments inflicted. (emphasis mine)
I would argue that death for murder is not cruel OR unusual. Most nations throughout history (until recently) have used death as a punishment for certain crimes. I would say death as a punishment is normal. Therefore if a death sentence WAS cruel, (such as being tied to two Hummers going in opposite directions, pulled in half and left for vultures to pick at you) it would still not violate the eighth amendment. It would be cruel, but not unusual. If the penalty for rape was death, it might meet the qualifications of unusual, (though I honestly doubt it) but if it was carried out in a humane manner, ie. lethal injection, it also would not violate the eighth amendment. Just a few things to chew on and start some discussion.
03 August 2008
Referendum on Obama?
I'm not sure who I've heard say this on talk radio, perhaps it's a number of hosts. I'm pretty sure Rush and Levin have both said that this election is not about McCain, but is a referendum on Obama. Surely the journalist who wrote this article picked up on this. Well, I do agree that this election is all about Obama. Obama is hailed as the messiah for the Democrats, but he isn't even cracking 50% in the polls. Perhaps Americans aren't as blind as the Mainstream Media thinks they are. On the outside, it would appear to be a two man race, but really it is just a "Referendum on Obama". Are Obama and his radical policies what America needs (no) or even want? (I hope not)
Even though McCain is the one who picked up the nomination for the Republicans, he was not the choice of conservatives or even of a majority of Republicans. However with no clear-cut conservative candidate, McCain emerged as the guy the largest segment of Republicans (and Democrats who decided to vote in the Republican Primary) chose to vote for. Conservatives were split trying to figure out who, between Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee, fit the mold they were looking for. None of them were the star that conservatives hoped for, and McCain emerged as the winner almost by default. It was almost like a 'Battle Royale' and McCain hid in the corner as all the other guys were fighting it out. Once Romney had his back turned, McCain snuck up and pushed him out of the ring.
Coming back to Obama, as he is what this election is about anyway. He is not running away with this election, and the Democrats are stunned. He has received Rock Star treatment and has women swooning over him. Why isn't he running away with this election then? I believe that the more people find out about his policies, the more he scares the crap out of them. His policies sound a whole lot like a watered down version of Marxism. He is so set on raising taxes on the rich to make things "fair" he misses the point. The rich already pay WAY more than what is "fair", but Obama wants to increase it. If Obama wanted the tax structure to be "fair", he would be pushing for the Fair Tax, or some sort of flat tax. No, he wants wealth redistribution. The problem is, wealth redistribution ALWAYS FAILS. If we redistribute wealth, we will lose jobs. Big Business will be forced to move overseas, and small businesses will go out of business. The businesses that stay and survive will not be able to hire as many employees because their tax burden is too high. People will have to work more hours to make ends meet, (if they can find a job) cutting time with family which already is too low in America.
His energy policies are laughable. He (and his party) has done nothing to attempt to bring down oil prices. He says we just need to use less. Well here's the problem Barack, we ARE using less. But at $4.00 a gallon it crushes our wallet no matter how much we cut back. If we all lived in Chicago or New York, it wouldn't matter quite as much, but where regular Americans live, we sometimes have to drive to places like work. Increased fuel and food prices mean we have to cut back on spending, (which hurts the economy) saving and investing, (which hurts our future as well as the economy) or paying bills, which hurts quality of life. The average joe has had to cut back to make ends meet and Obama has offered nothing but this little nugget of wisdom; "put air in your tires". Brilliant, if that is the kind of leadership we can expect for four years of an Obama administration, there's no wonder he isn't cleaning McCain's clock.
I really hate the idea of voting against someone I don't like. I really would like to vote FOR someone I do like. But in order to do that, I'll have to write someone in. I just 'hope' Americans will come to their senses and pay attention to the 'change' that Obama wants to bring to America. It looks a whole lot like Marxism.
02 August 2008
Did you vote for these losers?
Congress today has adjourned for five weeks. The vote to adjourn was 213-212. EVERY Republican voted to keep going until a vote on oil exploration came up. The Democrats say that a vote on drilling won't do anything. Well, I say that's crap! Since President Bush removed the executive ban on drilling, I've seen gas drop 24 cents a gallon. That means when I filled up my tank today, I saved over 3 dollars. That may not sound like a whole lot, but what if Congress opened up drilling? I think the price would probably drop another 50 cents or more. Americans would be saving 10 dollars or more per fill-up. But that's just the beginning. Almost every product from food to toys to clothing gets shipped using gasoline. (or diesel) Bringing down the cost of gas, brings down the cost of food as well. But Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats today said resoundingly, "Screw the American People, and let them pay for the fuel in my jet at $3.80 a gallon!"
I also find it interesting that Congress gets a 5 week summer vacation, when they get all kinds of other vacations throughout the year. I'm curious if the President has the power to call them back. In Texas, the Governor can call the Legislature into session for certain reasons. It is one of the few powers the Governor has. Why doesn't the President call them back, and make them do the job they begged and pleaded with their constituents to do? Truly though, the President shouldn't even have to plead with them, they should be doing it willingly. There is no reason for them to take a 5 week vacation. Maybe 100 years ago, they needed to, so they could get back to their districts, but now they can be back in their districts every weekend if they want, and most of them probably are. No wonder their approval rating is 19%.
I also find it interesting that Congress gets a 5 week summer vacation, when they get all kinds of other vacations throughout the year. I'm curious if the President has the power to call them back. In Texas, the Governor can call the Legislature into session for certain reasons. It is one of the few powers the Governor has. Why doesn't the President call them back, and make them do the job they begged and pleaded with their constituents to do? Truly though, the President shouldn't even have to plead with them, they should be doing it willingly. There is no reason for them to take a 5 week vacation. Maybe 100 years ago, they needed to, so they could get back to their districts, but now they can be back in their districts every weekend if they want, and most of them probably are. No wonder their approval rating is 19%.
24 July 2008
Baptism: Condition of Grace
I hope to be able to properly address the question about: "What is a condition of grace?"
God pours out his grace freely to those willing to accept Jesus as the "way and the truth and the life". (John 14:6) However, believing is not enough. The condition is baptism. Much like if you were given a very large check, but you had to go to the bank to receive it; action is required. Belief alone does not get you all the way there. As Jesus' brother James says; 'I will show you my faith by what I do' (James 2:18) and, 'faith without deeds is dead'. (James 2:26) Simply believing is not enough, your actions should confirm your belief.
While there are a great many scriptures which speak to our salvation being by grace, there are also a number which say that our sins are washed away at baptism. How do we reconcile this? Well, both are true! It is only because of God's grace that we can be saved! We deserve death as a punishment for our sins. However, through Jesus, we can be reconciled to and enter into a relationship with God. If we have faith that Jesus is the Messiah who died for our sins, and then are baptized, our sins will be washed away. Many people will call this a 'work', but I'd have to disagree.
As Gordon Ferguson states in his book Romans: The Heart Set Free (pg 86) the basis of forgiveness is the blood of Jesus, and the condition is baptism. We are saved by grace through the blood of Jesus; this is the basis. The condition to accepting God's grace is baptism. If someone writes you a check and tells you to pick it up at the bank, is it really 'work' to go to the bank and pick it up? Or as Ferguson points out, would you brag to people about 'how hard you worked'? Or would you say, 'I received this check by grace, all I had to do was drive to the bank and pick it up!" I think it's clear that the check is received by grace and not works. But it does take faith and action to go to receive that check just as it takes faith and action to be baptized; "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38)
I believe the entire (or at least most of the ) problem with the watering down (no pun intended, well initially at least) of baptism is that interpreters of the scriptures have forgotten, disregarded or not paid attention to the original context of the scriptures. It has been said, though I'm not sure by whom, "Scripture can never mean what it never meant." The point is, it can't mean something to us that it didn't mean to the original hearers. God knew that we would be reading Paul's letters to Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc. but it DID have meaning to them as well. It wasn't written solely for us. What good would that be to those Christians, and how would that encourage them? Along those lines, if Paul is writing to Christians who have already been baptized, would he really need to go into the details of baptism? It is highly doubtful.
Much like Jesus' rebuke of the CHURCH in Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) was written to Christians and not non-believers, Paul's letters to Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, etc. were written to Christians. They may have been children who still needed spiritual milk, but they had already been born again. (John 3:3, 5-7) There was no need for Paul to discuss how one became a Christian, but discussion was necessary as to how one STAYED a Christian. (Paul did bring up baptism throughout some of his letters, but it wasn't a focal point) Paul emphasized grace because the Judaizers were emphasizing observance of the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation. He was reminding them that death came by the law, and salvation came by God's grace, and observing the Jewish Law would not, and could not save them, but would instead condemn them. He did not need to focus on baptism, because it was moot, as his audience had already been baptized.
Here are a few scriptures which address baptism as a CONDITION of salvation:
"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16)
Paul is recounting his conversion experience. Paul's sins were washed away at baptism.
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Galatians 3:26-27)
Paul reminding the Galatian churches that they were clothed with Christ (saved) at baptism.
"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)
Paul telling the church in Colossae that they died to their former life and were raised to a new life during baptism.
"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7)
Paul tells Titus that we are saved; "through the washing of rebirth" (baptism)
"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." (1 Peter 3:18-22)
Here Peter says that the flood of Noah's day symbolized the water of baptism. As the Great Flood purged the world of sin, so does baptism (through faith in Jesus, by the power of God and by His grace) cleanse the individual of sin.
Thanks for help on this post go to Gordon Ferguson (who I've yet to meet, but will certainly someday) and his book; Romans: The Heart Set Free and convesations with my friend Andy Confer as well as his book; Three Woes For Babylon: Revelation; the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever of which I have an advance copy.
God pours out his grace freely to those willing to accept Jesus as the "way and the truth and the life". (John 14:6) However, believing is not enough. The condition is baptism. Much like if you were given a very large check, but you had to go to the bank to receive it; action is required. Belief alone does not get you all the way there. As Jesus' brother James says; 'I will show you my faith by what I do' (James 2:18) and, 'faith without deeds is dead'. (James 2:26) Simply believing is not enough, your actions should confirm your belief.
While there are a great many scriptures which speak to our salvation being by grace, there are also a number which say that our sins are washed away at baptism. How do we reconcile this? Well, both are true! It is only because of God's grace that we can be saved! We deserve death as a punishment for our sins. However, through Jesus, we can be reconciled to and enter into a relationship with God. If we have faith that Jesus is the Messiah who died for our sins, and then are baptized, our sins will be washed away. Many people will call this a 'work', but I'd have to disagree.
As Gordon Ferguson states in his book Romans: The Heart Set Free (pg 86) the basis of forgiveness is the blood of Jesus, and the condition is baptism. We are saved by grace through the blood of Jesus; this is the basis. The condition to accepting God's grace is baptism. If someone writes you a check and tells you to pick it up at the bank, is it really 'work' to go to the bank and pick it up? Or as Ferguson points out, would you brag to people about 'how hard you worked'? Or would you say, 'I received this check by grace, all I had to do was drive to the bank and pick it up!" I think it's clear that the check is received by grace and not works. But it does take faith and action to go to receive that check just as it takes faith and action to be baptized; "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38)
I believe the entire (or at least most of the ) problem with the watering down (no pun intended, well initially at least) of baptism is that interpreters of the scriptures have forgotten, disregarded or not paid attention to the original context of the scriptures. It has been said, though I'm not sure by whom, "Scripture can never mean what it never meant." The point is, it can't mean something to us that it didn't mean to the original hearers. God knew that we would be reading Paul's letters to Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc. but it DID have meaning to them as well. It wasn't written solely for us. What good would that be to those Christians, and how would that encourage them? Along those lines, if Paul is writing to Christians who have already been baptized, would he really need to go into the details of baptism? It is highly doubtful.
Much like Jesus' rebuke of the CHURCH in Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) was written to Christians and not non-believers, Paul's letters to Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, etc. were written to Christians. They may have been children who still needed spiritual milk, but they had already been born again. (John 3:3, 5-7) There was no need for Paul to discuss how one became a Christian, but discussion was necessary as to how one STAYED a Christian. (Paul did bring up baptism throughout some of his letters, but it wasn't a focal point) Paul emphasized grace because the Judaizers were emphasizing observance of the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation. He was reminding them that death came by the law, and salvation came by God's grace, and observing the Jewish Law would not, and could not save them, but would instead condemn them. He did not need to focus on baptism, because it was moot, as his audience had already been baptized.
Here are a few scriptures which address baptism as a CONDITION of salvation:
"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16)
Paul is recounting his conversion experience. Paul's sins were washed away at baptism.
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Galatians 3:26-27)
Paul reminding the Galatian churches that they were clothed with Christ (saved) at baptism.
"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12)
Paul telling the church in Colossae that they died to their former life and were raised to a new life during baptism.
"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7)
Paul tells Titus that we are saved; "through the washing of rebirth" (baptism)
"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." (1 Peter 3:18-22)
Here Peter says that the flood of Noah's day symbolized the water of baptism. As the Great Flood purged the world of sin, so does baptism (through faith in Jesus, by the power of God and by His grace) cleanse the individual of sin.
Thanks for help on this post go to Gordon Ferguson (who I've yet to meet, but will certainly someday) and his book; Romans: The Heart Set Free and convesations with my friend Andy Confer as well as his book; Three Woes For Babylon: Revelation; the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever of which I have an advance copy.
23 July 2008
Why Islam?
I just read this article on CNN.com and it got me to thinking. Why not Christianity? I don't have $48000, but that's not a great deal of money for advertising on 1000 subway cars running in New York City for a whole month. A typical billboard can run around $1000 dollars per month. This program is running at $48 per month per ad. That is a steal in any market, but New York!? We are talking a population of 8,000,000 and a Metro population in the 20,000,000 ballpark. Add in millions of visitors and you are talking about a huge audience for $48 per ad. So if the question IS why Islam? The other question should also be, why not Christianity? A personal note to this post is, our family is expecting to be in New York around the times this ad will be running. I don't know if we'll be able to go, but we are trying to make it happen. If I do go, I'll be sure to take some pictures.
13 July 2008
Refined by Fire
"But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver."
(Malachi 3:2-3a)
The brother who preached at church today finished out his sermon by mentioning this scripture and the one at the end of my blog post. He was in the ministry for 15 years and while he was in the ministry this scripture came up during a bible discussion. A sister at that discussion decided to make an appointment with a silversmith to get some insight into this. She didn't tell him why she wanted to see his work other than general interest. The silversmith explained to her that you have to hold the silver in the hottest part of the fire to make sure all of the impurities are burned off. You have to watch it carefully however, because you can ruin it if it isn't in the hottest part of the fire. Also if you aren't careful, and keep it in the fire too long, you will destroy the silver as well as burning off the impurities. She asked him; "If you can't keep it in too long, how do you know when it's ready?" He replied; "When I can see my reflection in it."
Isn't this how God treats his children? He holds us in the hottest parts of the fire, not to hurt us, but to purify us. It's certainly not easy for us, but God is right there, watching, feeling the heat as well, and making sure we are right where we need to be, until He can see Himself in us. This world brings trials, but God does not disappoint us. He is always there, always caring, always watching, allowing us to go through trials, yet keeping His eyes on us the whole time, purifying us. The purification process is not always pleasant, but it is good. I have been feeling this heat of purification for awhile now. I need to be reminded (and was today) that God is always there, always watching. He is making sure we are right where we need to be, to eventually show His likeness in ourselves. I need to remember that Abraham waited until he was as good as dead (from Hebrews 11:12) to receive the son God promised him. Moses spent 80 years away from the palace that he could have lived in, and 40 years in the desert leading God's people to the Promised Land that he would never enter. David, who spent his whole life fighting for God, would never see the temple that he planned feverishly for. These men (and many other men and women in the bible) never saw, or waited a VERY long time to see, what God really had in store for them. But they trusted that God knew what He was doing, and that the trials they endured were God's plan for their life, even if they struggled through it. The next time you are fighting through a difficult challenge in your life, remember that God is there, watching carefully. Making sure you are right where you need to be. Hopefully you'll be able to say as Paul did shortly before his death:
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:7-8)
(Malachi 3:2-3a)
The brother who preached at church today finished out his sermon by mentioning this scripture and the one at the end of my blog post. He was in the ministry for 15 years and while he was in the ministry this scripture came up during a bible discussion. A sister at that discussion decided to make an appointment with a silversmith to get some insight into this. She didn't tell him why she wanted to see his work other than general interest. The silversmith explained to her that you have to hold the silver in the hottest part of the fire to make sure all of the impurities are burned off. You have to watch it carefully however, because you can ruin it if it isn't in the hottest part of the fire. Also if you aren't careful, and keep it in the fire too long, you will destroy the silver as well as burning off the impurities. She asked him; "If you can't keep it in too long, how do you know when it's ready?" He replied; "When I can see my reflection in it."
Isn't this how God treats his children? He holds us in the hottest parts of the fire, not to hurt us, but to purify us. It's certainly not easy for us, but God is right there, watching, feeling the heat as well, and making sure we are right where we need to be, until He can see Himself in us. This world brings trials, but God does not disappoint us. He is always there, always caring, always watching, allowing us to go through trials, yet keeping His eyes on us the whole time, purifying us. The purification process is not always pleasant, but it is good. I have been feeling this heat of purification for awhile now. I need to be reminded (and was today) that God is always there, always watching. He is making sure we are right where we need to be, to eventually show His likeness in ourselves. I need to remember that Abraham waited until he was as good as dead (from Hebrews 11:12) to receive the son God promised him. Moses spent 80 years away from the palace that he could have lived in, and 40 years in the desert leading God's people to the Promised Land that he would never enter. David, who spent his whole life fighting for God, would never see the temple that he planned feverishly for. These men (and many other men and women in the bible) never saw, or waited a VERY long time to see, what God really had in store for them. But they trusted that God knew what He was doing, and that the trials they endured were God's plan for their life, even if they struggled through it. The next time you are fighting through a difficult challenge in your life, remember that God is there, watching carefully. Making sure you are right where you need to be. Hopefully you'll be able to say as Paul did shortly before his death:
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing." (2 Timothy 4:7-8)
04 July 2008
Independence Day
Independence Day is not just the day (or weekend) that Will Smith releases his new $200 million movie every year. It is the day we remember when our forefathers declared independence from England. They declared independence from tyranny. They decided they would not stand for being treated as less than human without a say. It is a day we remember those who said no to tyranny, and a day to remember those who have died to defend our freedoms. Yes there is Memorial Day and Veterans Day to remember our troops. However, on Independece Day, July the fourth, it is good to remember the Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen who have fought, and those who have given their lives to preserve the freedom that was declared 232 years ago.
28 June 2008
Books
I am going to be writing a book. I have a few ideas in my head for different books that I want to write in the future, but I want to get some input as to what people would like to read. Perhaps, I'll get an idea that I didn't have before. I am hoping that I can get input from a lot of different sources. Here is the deal. I'm going to write a spiritual book and I am curious to see what would be most helpful to people on their spiritual walk. Now I know not everyone is in the same place as me, but that's OK. I'm going for more mainstream anyway. I'd like to eventually make a living from writing, so I'd like the book (and probably most of the books I'd write) to have a broad audience. Not necessarily all-inclusive, but broad enough that it can be helpful across denominational lines. I'm sure I'll write some books that are more specific to my family of churches in the future, but for now, I'm looking at a broader audience. That's my goal, and any input would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Nestor
Thanks,
Nestor
18 June 2008
T.R.
Theodore Roosevelt is probably my favorite president of all time. I don't think he was the best, that would probably be either Washington or Lincoln. However, he is right up there. He led the nation in a time of relative peace, even though he served honorably in the Army. He was a young Governor, Vice President, and President. Though conservative, he cared about the environment. (in a true sense, unlike hypocrites like Al Gore) He believed in the free-market, yet didn't allow big business to run amok. While I believe that Winston Churchill was more important in the grand scheme of the 20th century, America needs a President much like T.R. today. Here are a few quotes from T.R. that I enjoy.
A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.
Theodore Roosevelt
A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues.
Theodore Roosevelt
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
Believe you can and you're halfway there.
Theodore Roosevelt
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.
Theodore Roosevelt
Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.
Theodore Roosevelt
Never throughout history has a man who lived a life of ease left a name worth remembering.
Theodore Roosevelt
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.
Theodore Roosevelt
Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big.
Theodore Roosevelt
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.
Theodore Roosevelt
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
Theodore Roosevelt
There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100% Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else.
Theodore Roosevelt
11 June 2008
On the Meez bandwagon
OK, I was finally able to get this to work. I can't say I'll do this again, but I won't say I won't either.
09 June 2008
Slavery
This post is a response to Diana's question about the slavery portion of Exodus directly preceding the scripture I quoted in response to Reck's question on my Personhood Colorado post. The scipture she referred to was; Exodus 21:20-21. I will start by saying this: I don't believe it is God's desire for men to own slaves, however, it is not sinful. It is not God's desire for a man to have more than one wife, however that is not sinful either. Everyone in the bible I can think of who had more than one wife had issues because of it. Similarly, slavery was permitted, yet probably wasn't a good idea.
I would argue however, that Israel took far better care of their slaves than most other (if not all) ancient peoples because of scriptures like that one (Exodus 21:20-21) as well as:
"If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
"If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." (Deuteronomy 23:16)
"Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this." (Deuteronomy 24:17-18)
Now there are many, many more scriptures which refer to how Israel was to treat slaves, foreigners, servants, etc. The heart of God was that all people should be treated well. Were slaves property? Yes. The Israelites were reminded MANY times that at one time, THEY were the property of the Egyptians, and that they needed to remember that when they dealt with their own slaves.
Where does this go to? A better question may be, what is the point of the Old Testament and its teachings? The purpose of the Old Testament was to proclaim the coming of Jesus, the Messiah. It is also the story of God's relationship with his Kingdom, primarily the physical kingdom of Israel. I would have to write many books to go into all of the intricacies of the Old Testament and how they play out into God's Spiritual Kingdom that began around 33 AD. (Indeed, many have been written)
Actual slavery is a metaphor for our slavery to sin. When we are not in a relationship with God, we are slaves to Satan and this world. When we ARE in a relationship with God, when we have been washed of our sins through the blood of Christ, then we are no longer in slavery. Just as Israel's captors were washed away and defeated in the waters of the Red Sea, so is Satan defeated and our sin washed away in the waters of baptism. When Israel crossed through the Red Sea they were freed from slavery, but had a new perspective on slavery that they needed to be reminded of. A Christian needs to be reminded of his/her former life of slavery to sin, and look compassionately on those still in sin. However, those in sin are not God's people, as their sins separate them from God. This doesn't mean that God doesn't love them. It does mean that they are lost in sin, and need salvation. They need to be set free.
Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy have the rules that God set out for His physical Kingdom on Earth; Israel. Because they were his chosen people, sin could not be among them, and the penalties for sin had to be swift and harsh. Sin not only separates the individual from God, but unchecked can destroy the entire Kingdom. Because the physical Kingdom of Israel no longer exists today, things have changed, slightly. We are not under law, but under grace. That does not mean, however that we can 'sin it up'. (Romans 6:1-2) We need to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. We need to rid our lives of all sin. To bring this to a close, as this has gotten longer than I intended (it was intended to be a comment) those in slavery to sin are separated from God, and will not see heaven. Those who have been freed from slavery WILL see heaven. If God chooses to reward and treat as better those who are not slaves in this more perfect Spiritual Kingdom, then why would he have not treated his chosen people Israel, better than those who were their slaves?
I would argue however, that Israel took far better care of their slaves than most other (if not all) ancient peoples because of scriptures like that one (Exodus 21:20-21) as well as:
"If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
"If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." (Deuteronomy 23:16)
"Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this." (Deuteronomy 24:17-18)
Now there are many, many more scriptures which refer to how Israel was to treat slaves, foreigners, servants, etc. The heart of God was that all people should be treated well. Were slaves property? Yes. The Israelites were reminded MANY times that at one time, THEY were the property of the Egyptians, and that they needed to remember that when they dealt with their own slaves.
Where does this go to? A better question may be, what is the point of the Old Testament and its teachings? The purpose of the Old Testament was to proclaim the coming of Jesus, the Messiah. It is also the story of God's relationship with his Kingdom, primarily the physical kingdom of Israel. I would have to write many books to go into all of the intricacies of the Old Testament and how they play out into God's Spiritual Kingdom that began around 33 AD. (Indeed, many have been written)
Actual slavery is a metaphor for our slavery to sin. When we are not in a relationship with God, we are slaves to Satan and this world. When we ARE in a relationship with God, when we have been washed of our sins through the blood of Christ, then we are no longer in slavery. Just as Israel's captors were washed away and defeated in the waters of the Red Sea, so is Satan defeated and our sin washed away in the waters of baptism. When Israel crossed through the Red Sea they were freed from slavery, but had a new perspective on slavery that they needed to be reminded of. A Christian needs to be reminded of his/her former life of slavery to sin, and look compassionately on those still in sin. However, those in sin are not God's people, as their sins separate them from God. This doesn't mean that God doesn't love them. It does mean that they are lost in sin, and need salvation. They need to be set free.
Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy have the rules that God set out for His physical Kingdom on Earth; Israel. Because they were his chosen people, sin could not be among them, and the penalties for sin had to be swift and harsh. Sin not only separates the individual from God, but unchecked can destroy the entire Kingdom. Because the physical Kingdom of Israel no longer exists today, things have changed, slightly. We are not under law, but under grace. That does not mean, however that we can 'sin it up'. (Romans 6:1-2) We need to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. We need to rid our lives of all sin. To bring this to a close, as this has gotten longer than I intended (it was intended to be a comment) those in slavery to sin are separated from God, and will not see heaven. Those who have been freed from slavery WILL see heaven. If God chooses to reward and treat as better those who are not slaves in this more perfect Spiritual Kingdom, then why would he have not treated his chosen people Israel, better than those who were their slaves?
07 June 2008
Personhood Colorado
People are finally taking on the bogus ruling in Roe v. Wade. Personhood Colorado, has added an amendment up for vote on the November ballot that would state; "The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization." This would rule out all abortions in the state of Colorado and while it will certainly be challenged by some activist judge, there is a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court. Let's pray and hope that the Colorado voters don't give in to the inevitable bombardment by the pro-abortion lobby which is estimated to be spending $10,000,000 to sway Colorado voters on this amendment. (Far more than Personhood Colorado has) If this goes through, more and more states are likely pursue similar amendments and appeals to the Supreme Court may eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. The website is: http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/
05 June 2008
From the mouth of the man who saved Western Civilisation
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
Sir Winston Churchill
A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.
Sir Winston Churchill
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
Sir Winston Churchill
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill
It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.
Sir Winston Churchill
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
Sir Winston Churchill
The price of greatness is responsibility.
Sir Winston Churchill
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
Sir Winston Churchill
But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age.... Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, This was their finest hour.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.
Sir Winston Churchill
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
Sir Winston Churchill
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill
It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.
Sir Winston Churchill
One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
Sir Winston Churchill
The price of greatness is responsibility.
Sir Winston Churchill
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
Sir Winston Churchill
But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age.... Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, This was their finest hour.
Sir Winston Churchill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)